UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[Thomas D]

I'm so excited for this campaign to get under way.

[doktorb]

I'm so excited for this campaign to get under way.

It is likely to be the harshest, rudest, most un-British campaign since, ooh, the last one. I remember as a youngster hearing how shocked people were at the tone of the 1992 election: this won't have nowt on that, I tell's thee.

There has been a change in party spending limits, incidentally, so not only will 2015 be the most highly charged election, it'll be the most expensive too. If the only curious thing about our general elections which attracted you was the sight of all the candidates lined up like prized pigs at a country fair during results night, I suspect there's going to be an entire shed-load of things to keep you engrossed this time.

[afleitch]

I'm so excited for this campaign to get under way.

It is likely to be the harshest, rudest, most un-British campaign since, ooh, the last one. I remember as a youngster hearing how shocked people were at the tone of the 1992 election: this won't have nowt on that, I tell's thee.

There has been a change in party spending limits, incidentally, so not only will 2015 be the most highly charged election, it'll be the most expensive too. If the only curious thing about our general elections which attracted you was the sight of all the candidates lined up like prized pigs at a country fair during results night, I suspect there's going to be an entire shed-load of things to keep you engrossed this time.

The big wildcard of the campaign is Ed Miliband himself. Ed. Every day. With real people. That's not happened before and hasn't been allowed to happen. It might go exceptionally well, or if he just comes across as odd for four weeks could bring Labour's campaign crashing down.

[joevsimp]

http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/

Fun with the demographic breakdowns in polls.

looks like ashcroft's got his sums wrong again, 1497% of people who voted conservative in 2010 will be doing so next year, which should come in handy in those key marginals

[Zanas]

http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/

Fun with the demographic breakdowns in polls.

looks like ashcroft's got his sums wrong again, 1497% of people who voted conservative in 2010 will be doing so next year, which should come in handy in those key marginals

That's what you get for having one of your leaders named Boris...

[doktorb]

I'm so excited for this campaign to get under way.

It is likely to be the harshest, rudest, most un-British campaign since, ooh, the last one. I remember as a youngster hearing how shocked people were at the tone of the 1992 election: this won't have nowt on that, I tell's thee.

There has been a change in party spending limits, incidentally, so not only will 2015 be the most highly charged election, it'll be the most expensive too. If the only curious thing about our general elections which attracted you was the sight of all the candidates lined up like prized pigs at a country fair during results night, I suspect there's going to be an entire shed-load of things to keep you engrossed this time.

The big wildcard of the campaign is Ed Miliband himself. Ed. Every day. With real people. That's not happened before and hasn't been allowed to happen. It might go exceptionally well, or if he just comes across as odd for four weeks could bring Labour's campaign crashing down.

Absolutely. Each appearance has been few and far between (often because of the mopping up afterwards). They can't hide him for two months between March and May. We're not looking at a "Sarah Palin moment", I don't think, but if anybody in the current UK party leaderships looks likely to sink an entire campaign on their own, it's Ed.

[Vega]

The problem with Ed Miliband is that he knows the information, and has solutions, but he can't deliver those solutions in a cohesive manor.

[politicus]

The problem with Ed Miliband is that he knows the information, and has solutions, but he can't deliver those solutions in a cohesive manor.

Only toffs have cohesive manors.

[Vega]

The problem with Ed Miliband is that he knows the information, and has solutions, but he can't deliver those solutions in a cohesive manor.

Only toffs have cohesive manors.

Well, Ed is trying to change that.

you know what I meant.

[jaichind]

Tony Blair doubts Ed Miliband can win 2015 general election

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/tony-blair-ed-miliband-general-election-labour

Although Blair seems to try to walk back his comments.  How he feels is clear.

[jaichind]

Prime Minister Ed McMiliband? It's pure fantasy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11318945/Prime-Minister-Ed-McMiliband-Its-pure-fantasy.html

I find this article interesting of how SNP is playing up talk that they will back a Labor government so they can take away the last reasons to vote Labor in Scotland versus SNP.

[136or142]

Labour leads or is tied in the final polls of 2014
Populus: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4% (tabs)
YouGov/Sun: CON 32%, LAB 36%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 16%, GRN 5% (tabs)
from: ukpollingreport

[morgieb]

I'm tipping another election within a few months, or otherwise a Labor minority government.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Prime Minister Ed McMiliband? It's pure fantasy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11318945/Prime-Minister-Ed-McMiliband-Its-pure-fantasy.html

I find this article interesting of how SNP is playing up talk that they will back a Labor government so they can take away the last reasons to vote Labor in Scotland versus SNP.

Hodges is a ... strange man.

[136or142]

If Labour Party support crashes in Scotland as the polls presently 'predict' it will be impossible for them to get a majority, and winning the most seats would be difficult as well.

The polls also show the Liberal Democrats will lose most of the seats they now hold, but an SNP could prop up a second place Labour Party into government.  I highly doubt, despite what the author of that article satirically suggests, that any SNP members would be in the cabinet.

[Harry Hayfield]

I'm tipping another election within a few months, or otherwise a Labor minority government.

Can anyone clarify the following for me? If the next election produces a result where no viable coalition can be created am I right in thinking that Cameron would stand down as PM, Milliband would be invited and then stand down as PM and Parliament would have to vote to dissolve itself under the rules of the Fixed Term Parliament Act?

[doktorb]

I'm tipping another election within a few months, or otherwise a Labor minority government.

Can anyone clarify the following for me? If the next election produces a result where no viable coalition can be created am I right in thinking that Cameron would stand down as PM, Milliband would be invited and then stand down as PM and Parliament would have to vote to dissolve itself under the rules of the Fixed Term Parliament Act?

I *think* that's how it works, yes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've never understood why some polling firms conduct surveys over Christmas.

If Labour Party support crashes in Scotland as the polls presently 'predict' it will be impossible for them to get a majority, and winning the most seats would be difficult as well.

This isn't actually true, although it would make it a lot harder.

[Harry Hayfield]

What a good thing I have spent today organising my battleground charts, eh?

Labour currently have 258 MP's (yes, I know they lost Bradford West and gained Corby but this is as of the last election and by-elections don't count), therefore in order to win a majority they need to gain 68 seats. The 68th Labour target is Norwich North and that would go to Labour on a swing of 4.58% (a national Labour lead of 1.86%). For every seat that the SNP gain from Labour, Labour have to gain another seat from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru so if (as some polls have been suggesting) Labour lose 37 of their Scottish seats to the SNP, Labour have to gain another 37 from other sources which would take them to target number 105 Derbyshire South (when allowing for Scottish targets it would be 109 which is Cambridge on a swing of 7.43%, a national Labour lead of 7.56%)

[Vega]

Considering the fact that the majority of the coalition's time has not been great with high unemployment and wage cuts and it's only now we're starting to see positives, it's almost incredible that Ed Milliband won't end up PM.

[MaxQue]

What a good thing I have spent today organising my battleground charts, eh?

Labour currently have 258 MP's (yes, I know they lost Bradford West and gained Corby but this is as of the last election and by-elections don't count), therefore in order to win a majority they need to gain 68 seats. The 68th Labour target is Norwich North and that would go to Labour on a swing of 4.58% (a national Labour lead of 1.86%). For every seat that the SNP gain from Labour, Labour have to gain another seat from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru so if (as some polls have been suggesting) Labour lose 37 of their Scottish seats to the SNP, Labour have to gain another 37 from other sources which would take them to target number 105 Derbyshire South (when allowing for Scottish targets it would be 109 which is Cambridge on a swing of 7.43%, a national Labour lead of 7.56%)

But it would need a swing a little bit smaller than 7.56%, given than if their vote in Scotland is sharply down, their English vote is up a little bit, for the same national voteshare.

[EPG]

I'm tipping another election within a few months, or otherwise a Labor minority government.

Can anyone clarify the following for me? If the next election produces a result where no viable coalition can be created am I right in thinking that Cameron would stand down as PM, Milliband would be invited and then stand down as PM and Parliament would have to vote to dissolve itself under the rules of the Fixed Term Parliament Act?

Cameron can stay in office as long as nobody else is likely to command a majority in the Commons. If there is no viable coalition, there is no reason why the Queen would ask anyone other than Cameron to form a government instead.

Considering the fact that the majority of the coalition's time has not been great with high unemployment and wage cuts and it's only now we're starting to see positives, it's almost incredible that Ed Milliband won't end up PM.

In fact, employment and even wages have been improving slowly, particularly since the beginning of 2013, to the extent that the Bank of England is now publicly considering an increase to interest rates. As for why the politics are as they are, people still blame the previous government for many of the problems, and Cameron/Osborne are more favoured as economic managers than Miliband/Balls. But that doesn't mean all is lost for Labour; a 4% lead, as reported in many opinion polls, would probably mean Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister.

[Phony Moderate]

The Tories need to be ahead by at minimum 2-3% in the popular vote to remain in office imo. The Tory lead at this stage in the previous parliament was only 3% higher than it achieved in the election. So you'd still have to (just) place your money on a Labour-led government. But the campaign itself will be more crucial than usual.

[ChrisDR68]

Tony Blair doubts Ed Miliband can win 2015 general election

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/tony-blair-ed-miliband-general-election-labour

Although Blair seems to try to walk back his comments.  How he feels is clear.

I can see where Tony Blair is coming from though. The two times a genuinely left wing Labour Party won power were both unusual for different reasons.

In 1945 the British people had gone through 6 years of war. War naturally centralises power as government takes over most economic activity. For a party of big government like Labour this legitimised their general philosophical outlook to much of the population. Allied to this the public had bad memories of the 1930's and the high unemployment experienced in many parts of the UK throughout that period.

Seen in this light it's not surprising Labour won a stonking majority.

In February 1974 Harold Wilson won purely by default. Labour's vote declined by 6% over what they achieved in 1970 but the hopeless Ted Heath and the Tories' vote went down even further (by a whopping 8%). Wilson became PM purely because his vote went down less than the incumbent Conservative government!

Even if you include 1964 (and I'm not sure Labour in 1964 were particularly left wing in comparison to 1945 and Feb 1974) Wilson only achieved a standstill in the Labour Party's vote compared to 1959. He sneaked into power because the Tory vote declined by 7% directly due to a revival in the Liberal Party's fortunes.

[EPG]

Another way to look at Scotland's impact on each party's hopes is to consider that, on constant turnout, there would be just under an 11:1 ratio between England+Wales voters and Scotland voters. Consider the "Conservative - Labour" share. In 2010, the +7.25% GB share was decomposed into +10.25% in England+Wales and -25.25% in Scotland. The current state of the SNP in Scotland is bad for Scottish Labour, but acts like a force-multiplier on GB-wide opinion polls. In recent Scotland opinion polls, Labour is down by about 17 percentage points and the Conservatives are holding steady from 2010. This is like increasing GB C-L by 1.5 percentage points.

In other words, swing to Labour in England and Wales is understated by applying national opinion polls uniformly to local results. If there is a national vote tie, GB swing is 7.2% but E+W swing is 9.5%. If Labour lead by 4%, GB swing is 11.2% but E+W swing is 13.9%.